"epistle side" and "gospel side": significance?
Bob Cunningham
In Jan Karon's books about Mitford and Father Tim's
Episcopal church, there are mentions of an "epistle side"
and a "gospel side". Some of the characters in the books
normally sit on the epistle side, while others sit on the
gospel side.
At http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/www/html/glossary.htm
there's a glossary of terms pertaining to the Episcopal
Church. Among other things, it says
Lesson
also the Epistle; any reading from the Bible except
the Gospels or Psalms; usually read on the opposite
side of the church from where the Gospel is read; in
older practice the Lesson was read from the "Epistle
Side"--the right side facing the altar, while the
Gospel was read from the "Gospel Side"--the left side
facing the altar. Current practice in many Episcopal
churches does not conform to this older pattern.
That seems clear enough, but what is not clear is the
significance of someone sitting on one side or the other.
If I were to sit regularly on the gospel side -- or the
epistle side -- what would that tell the other congregants
about me, if anything?
Tim
favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.
Regards,
Tim
Mr. Gerund
Steve Hayes
wrote:
It could tell them whether you were male or female.
I was told that the practice began because in Europe, as Christianity spread,
most of the heathen lived to the north, so they began reading the gospel on
the north side to remind the congregation of the need to preach the gospel to
them.
That may be a pious legend, however.
There was also a long-standing custom in the Christian church for males to sit
on the south side, and females on the north.
In southern Africa, and certainly in Zulu culture, there is a custom that on
entering a house males go to the right, and females to the left. In many
churches in that part of the world, including Anglican ones, that custom is
still followed. It may have been taught by Anglican missionaries from the UK,
who saw it as an opportu nity to reintroduce a pious custom that had fallen
into disuse in England (like women covering their heads).
It often continues, however, in the custom at weddings for the bridegroom (and
family) to be on the south side, and the bride on the left.
On Orthodox Churches there is no "epistle" and "gospel" side, but the custom
of males on the south and females on the north continues to be encouraged in
some parishes, especially in Russia, but also in Greece, where, however, it is
more dependent on the whims of the parish priest.
Interestingly enough, in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church the custom is reversed
- males go to the north, and females to the south.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Lyle
> It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
> favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.
And there's also "Cantoris" and "Decani" -- "the Cantor's" and "the
Dean's" -- sides for the choir-stalls in traditionally laid-out
English churches and college chapels. This can have musical
significance when the music is antiphonal; and may also be used as a
way of dividing the choir for things like cricket matches and
cherry-stone-spitting competitions.
Some places of worship have seats reserved for particular persons:
earlier this year I took a break in the seat marked "Bishop of Dover"
in Canterbury Cathedral.
Mike.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> "Tim" <t...@atest.com> wrote...
> > It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
> > favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.
>
> And there's also "Cantoris" and "Decani" -- "the Cantor's" and "the
> Dean's" -- sides for the choir-stalls in traditionally laid-out
> English churches and college chapels.
And -- just to bring the discussion down a few levels -- the "Phil side"
and "Bob side" of the areana at Grateful Dead shows, for two of the band
members.
--
SML
Please remove your hat when sending me e-mail
http://www.pirate-women.com
Anna Skipka
Wouldn't that be the "spear side" and "distaff side"?
-skipka
Steve Hayes
It could be, but that is not the question being asked.
I suspect that the only people who could really answer the question would be
those who was very familiar with Anglo-Catholicism in the 1920s.
Since there don't seem to be any of those reading this, one way of approaching
an answer, or prompting one, is to consider various reasons people might have
for being on different sides of the church.
Among Anglo-Catholics, one of the duties of a server at Low Mass was to move
the missal from the epistle side to the gospel side of the altar. That went
out in the mid 1960s, when Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy began facing
westwards in celebrating Mass.
A priest who had been ordained before 1955 might know, but others might
half-remember.
There was a similar discussion in AUE a few months ago about the phrase
"interesting children". Those who used it assumed that everyone who read it
knew the meaning well enough not to need its significance explained, and a
later generation really has no idea what they meant by it, because no
explanations survive. Similarly, no explanations appear to survive of the
significance of being on the gospel side or the epistle side.
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Zaph'enath
[snip]
> If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
> explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
> and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
> irrecoverable.
Wow Steve, I'm always amazed at what a great anthropologist you would
make. :-)
I used to have a copy of the original 1920s, Liturgy of St. James-based
Book of Common Prayer. I gave it to someone, though. I'll try to ask
him if it mentions that in there. Actually, it was someone that you
might know from the livejournal community (a common friend of ours) --
so if you put it on your Journal, he might notice it himself.
BTW, did that postcard get to you from Crete?
Cheers,
- Joseph
--
"One should guard against preaching to young people success
in the customary form as the main aim in life. The most
important motive for work in school and in life is pleasure
in work, pleasure in its result, and the knowledge of the
value of the result to the rest of the community."
-- Albert Einstein
C. Wingate
> Among Anglo-Catholics, one of the duties of a server at Low Mass was to move
> the missal from the epistle side to the gospel side of the altar. That went
> out in the mid 1960s, when Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy began facing
> westwards in celebrating Mass.
Well, I remember a decade ago going to Wednesday noon mass at Ascension
& St. Agnes in DC, and they were still doing all this (and facing
"East", but then the chapel had a shelf altar), so I'd say it was "not
dead yet". Fr. Davenport there is about my age, so it's a pretty sure
thing he learned this in the '70s or therabouts.
Liturgical traditions have always been subject to a variety of readings,
and to say that they all have a definite sense is usually misleading if
not futile. Perhaps the safest apporach is to write to Ms. Karom (c.o.
her publisher) and see if she will tell you what *she* meant.
C. Wingate
Mike Lyle
[...]
> If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
> explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
> and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
> irrecoverable.
This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.
I have an oldish colour-plated book giving the Order of Service of
Holy Communion in very High-Church terms, with handy hints on what to
think at various key moments; but it doesn't explain the handedness of
these readings.
Mike.
Priscilla Ballou
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) wrote:
> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message
> news:<3f4ad05c...@news.saix.net>...
> [...]
> > If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
> > explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten
> > tradition,
> > and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
> > irrecoverable.
>
> This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
> enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
> word. May even be Googlable.
>
> Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
> Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.
Because the altar's at the east. It's not that the Epistle is
associated with the direction south, but it's to the right of the altar
as you look at it, and the altar's in the east end of the
traditionally-placed church. Mirror that for the Gospel.
Priscilla
--
The Episcopal Church welcomes you... and you... and you....
John Varela
> If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
> explain, but the chance would be slim.
I have a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church USA,
and it is silent about where "the Minister appointed" stands for the Epistle
and Gospel.
--
John Varela
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
>> explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
>> and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
>> irrecoverable.
>
>Wow Steve, I'm always amazed at what a great anthropologist you would
>make. :-)
>
>I used to have a copy of the original 1920s, Liturgy of St. James-based
>Book of Common Prayer. I gave it to someone, though. I'll try to ask
>him if it mentions that in there. Actually, it was someone that you
>might know from the livejournal community (a common friend of ours) --
>so if you put it on your Journal, he might notice it himself.
I looked it up in "Ritual notes", 1964 edition, and in Lowther Clark, "Liturgy
and worship". No joy.
>BTW, did that postcard get to you from Crete?
Yes, a couple of days ago, thanks very much. Are you still there?
Jerry Friedman
Maybe just what group you were in? Some families, cliques, etc., in
that parish might have been in the habit of sitting on one side.
--
Jerry Friedman
Saint Fu Fu
Possible conjecture?
If the altar is at the East, the direction of the sunrise and
potentially the direction that Christ will come from when He returns,
the altar faces God. God is facing us in the West. Christ is at God's
right hand, the North side (Stage Right) and that is where His Word is
read. The Epistles are read from the opposite side, North (Stage Left)
as that's the only side remaining? Symmetry?)
The layout confirms this (fixed width font reveals a cruciform layout
here!)
God (above)
East
|
|
Christ (Right)-------------Holy Spirit (Left)
North | South
|
|
|
|
Church/Congregation (below)
West
I would bet that sitting on the right side of the church was reserved
for the more influential members of the congregation because it was
closer to the pulpit and on the "Christ" Gospel side while the Holy
Spirit Epistle side was more for the general congregants.
Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.
St. Fu Fu
Saint Fu Fu
Actually, if God is *facing* the congregation (or we are facing God)
then "Stage Right" would be God's right side, our left. The North side.
Since Christ is at God's right hand, he would be to the North of us.
St. Fu Fu
Donna Richoux
> Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
> side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
> stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
> influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
> leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.
It is also said, quite firmly, that that is false. For example, in our
FAQ:
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ (search on "posh")
I've got a whole list of those bogus "acronym" etymologies, from "cabal"
to "wop."
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Mike Lyle
We know about liturgical east; and of course liturgical south's on the
congregation's right. But the question was *why* south is the Epistle
side.
Mike.
Christopher Johnson
[POSTED TO AUE ONLY]
Is there any 'acronym etymology' on your list, Donna,
which mentions RF at all?
--
Christopher
Bob Cunningham
Richoux) said:
> Saint Fu Fu <stf...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
> > side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
> > stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
> > influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
> > leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.
> It is also said, quite firmly, that that is false.
I think that statement is too emphatic. My understanding is
that no one has proven that it's true, and those who comment
authoritatively on these things have cast serious doubt on
its truth, but I don't think any authoritative source has
stated firmly that it's absolutely without any doubt
whatsoever false.
For everyday purposes, it seems reasonable to say that it is
almost surely false, so long as we keep our minds open to
the possibility that someone may yet prove it true.
> For example, in our FAQ:
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ (search on "posh")
Better yet, go directly to
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxposhxx.html .
FTT
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fa4d950.03082...@posting.google.com...
As a convert to Anglicanism 50 years ago I was taught
that the Epistle is read from the South Side ---- as South = warmth.
The Epistle is written from one Christian Community to another
sharing the "warmth" of Faith in Christ.....
FTT
Louis
"Saint Fu Fu" <stf...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F4BBE...@pacbell.net...
What direction does the urinal face?
L
FTT
"Louis" <Xmycr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TdR2b.4944$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I guess Louis is once again saying he is p***ed offf!!!!!!!!!
FTT
DENNIS THOMPSON
parish, I have the duty of informing the servers at the rail of persons who
require communion to be served in their pews. I have alway felt that I
should say, e.g., "the elderly lady/gentleman on the epistle/gospel side
center aisle",,,, but when I get to the rail to deliver the message
invariably I forget which is epistle or gospel,,,, and then because the
server is facing me, I am not certain if he/she knows which side when I
refer to as the left side center aisle..... Such is the life of an
Episcopal usher.news:3F4BBF...@pacbell.net...
Steve Hayes
As I said, it's a largely unwritten tradition, though it is written up in some
devotional manuals (not the official Prayer Books), with some symbolic reasons
given for it.
The edition of "Ritual Notes" (a manual for Anglo-Catholic priests, servers
etc) that I have ignores the symbolical reasons as fanciful, and says simply
that at high mass, which is celebrated by a priest, a deacon and a sub-deacon,
the priest stands on the top step, the deacon stands on his right hand (when
they face the people), but one step down, and the sub-deacon stands on his
left, another step down. As it was the duty of the deacon to read the gospel,
and that of the sub-deacon to read the epistle, the deacon's side became the
"gospel side", and the sub-deacon's side became the "epistle side", and at Low
Mass, when the priest had to take the sub-deacon's part, he moved to the
epistle side to reasd the epistle, and when he took the deacon's part he moved
to the deacon's side to read the gospel.
Even that is not certain, but it is plausible.
But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
as described in a novel.
The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.
Saint Fu Fu
>
> As the "lead" usher at the Third Sunday Family Service at my Episcopal
> parish, I have the duty of informing the servers at the rail of persons who
> require communion to be served in their pews. I have alway felt that I
> should say, e.g., "the elderly lady/gentleman on the epistle/gospel side
> center aisle",,,, but when I get to the rail to deliver the message
> invariably I forget which is epistle or gospel,,,, and then because the
> server is facing me, I am not certain if he/she knows which side when I
> refer to as the left side center aisle..... Such is the life of an
> Episcopal usher.
My *dear* good fellow! THAT is what ceremony is *for*! You say in
sonorous whisper "the gentleman is on the (here insert very ceremonial
*hand genture*) Gospel side..."
You raise your hand, palm toward your shoulder, elbow bent, and then
rooooollll your arm out and down, horizontal, at last... hand naturally
unfurling, palm upward, fingers gracefully arched, then unfolding like
the veriest tender green fern after a warm Spring rain, concluding with
the hand delicately, oh, so delicately, trembling *ever* so slightly, in
the direction of said gentleman! Think Swan Lake! Think Madame Olga
Ivanawfulitch en-pointe, tutu a-quiver as she extends her arm... *OVER
THERE YA IDJIT*! :D
Very High Church!
St. Fu Fu
Saint Fu Fu
**frosty tones** Darling... In CHURCH?!! ... urinalotta TROUBLE!
Bob Cunningham
Thank you for being one of those who have shown awareness
that I asked that question.
I've decided that there almost certainly is no great
significance. It seems likely that, if there were some deep
underlying significance, in the numerous postings to this
thread someone would have come up with a meaning beyond the
one stated by an early responder: When I rephrased my
question to "If I normally sit on, say, the gospel side,
what does that tell someone about me?" she answered, in
effect, "It shows you're a creature of habit".
In the church that my wife and I attend fairly regularly, we
invariably sit on the right side of the center aisle. I
don't know why we do, except that we've been doing it so
long it would seem quite strange to sit on the other side.
Most, if not all, of the people sitting on either side are
the ones who are always on that side. I think now that
that probably has just as much significance as someone
sitting invariably on the gospel side or the epistle side in
an Episcopal church.
> The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
> best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.
I won't be making that inquiry, but if anyone else does,
I'll read with interest any response they get.
Zaph'enath
[snip]
>>BTW, did that postcard get to you from Crete?
>
>
> Yes, a couple of days ago, thanks very much. Are you still there?
Sadly, no. I know I should be grateful to be wherever I am, but it was
pure joy being there. There was an element of serenity at just being
out of the USSA, I think. I was there just long enough to really get
used to it. I ought to be going back next year, though. And, I've
arranged to take Greek lessons at the nearby Greek Orthodox parish.
Either way, I won't regret learning Greek.
The post in Crete is, mmmm, quirky. The postman would come pick up the
mail at the study center when he had the urge. I mailed several to my
home all on the same day, and they showed up spread over a week and a
half. I was just worried that yours fell off the side of the plane or
something... ;-)
Charles Riggs
>Saint Fu Fu <stf...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
>> side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
>> stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
>> influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
>> leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.
How'd I know in advance this would ring either Donna's or Evan's
chimes? But I did.
>It is also said, quite firmly, that that is false. For example, in our
>FAQ:
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ (search on "posh")
"Quite *firmly*." Yes, Big Nurse, whatever you say: false, false,
falsity false.
>I've got a whole list of those bogus "acronym" etymologies, from "cabal"
>to "wop."
Here come the myth-busters, hide your legends and beliefs.
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom
and replace with eir
Charles Riggs
For Fontana? Sure:
Fabricator Of Not-likely Tidbits About New Arrivals.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> As I said, it's a largely unwritten tradition, though it is written up in some
> devotional manuals (not the official Prayer Books), with some symbolic reasons
> given for it.
>
> The edition of "Ritual Notes" (a manual for Anglo-Catholic priests, servers
In confirmation of this disappointment, I've just heard from a
clerical friend:
QUOTE/
What recondite tastes in chat line!! I would imagine the reason, if
reason there be, would be along these lines:
the normative form of celebrating mass is sung with lots of clergy and
servers etc. (High Mass.) A low mass is a reduced form of high mass.
At high mass the Gospel would be read in the body of the church after
a
short procession (Gospel Procession). At a low mass you have a
truncated procession from one side of the altar to the other.
As my Liturgy tutor once observed, "it is a grave mistake to imagine
that liturgy is always logical".
Like anything(body) which evolves, there are bits for which nobody can
fully account.
/ENDQUOTE
> But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
> significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
> as described in a novel.
>
> The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
> best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.
I hope so too, but I imagine that, as somebody's suggested, it's just
that people have habits.
Has anybody mentioned that in England the wealthy often used to rent
their own particular pews, sometimes I believe screened from the
vulgar gaze? I imagine that some families would choose to have their
pews or stalls nearer to or farther from the pulpit (always on the
Gospel side?) according to taste.
There is a connection here with the perhaps not quite obsolete
practice of having certain clerical "livings" at the disposal of
certain people or bodies. (My old school chaplain on retirement became
Rector of a tiny but ornamental parish by courtesy, I understood, of
his old Oxford College.) You pay for it, you get the best seat.
Mike.
Peter Moylan
>"Tim" <t...@atest.com> wrote in message news:<tLd2b.7114$Nc.45...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
>> It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
>> favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.
>
>And there's also "Cantoris" and "Decani" -- "the Cantor's" and "the
>Dean's" -- sides for the choir-stalls in traditionally laid-out
>English churches and college chapels. This can have musical
>significance when the music is antiphonal; and may also be used as a
>way of dividing the choir for things like cricket matches and
>cherry-stone-spitting competitions.
OK for you. For choir practice, I always sit in the second seat
on the right, beside a retired Minister of the Crown. But I find
that I can't face choir practice without being appropriately
stoked up. In the words of my youth, a visit to the church is
an Occasion of Sin. I find myself perpetually confused by those
who are able to accept religion while sober.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Mike Lyle
> >to "wop."
>
> Here come the myth-busters, hide your legends and beliefs.
Interesting, though, all the same. Acronyms are in general a rather
recent feature of the language, so of course it's unlikely that any
given older word is based on one. What, then, lies behind the desire
to find the derivation of common words in such a way?
I don't mean "reverse-acronym-formation", a good word-game evident in
some of the cases we hear about, where the acronyms concocted could
never have been seriously offered as derivations -- though the less
finely-tuned do sometimes seem to take them for the real thing.
It all puts me in mind of the "brass monkey" phenomenon, in which
strenuous efforts are made by the unpoetic to find difficult
explanations for a simple expression.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> It is said that the acronym "Posh"
Not by anybody in alt.usage.english, it isn't.
Mike.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:02:38 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve
>Hayes) said:
>> But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
>> significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
>> as described in a novel.
>
>Thank you for being one of those who have shown awareness
>that I asked that question.
>
>I've decided that there almost certainly is no great
>significance. It seems likely that, if there were some deep
>underlying significance, in the numerous postings to this
>thread someone would have come up with a meaning beyond the
>one stated by an early responder: When I rephrased my
>question to "If I normally sit on, say, the gospel side,
>what does that tell someone about me?" she answered, in
>effect, "It shows you're a creature of habit".
I've followed this one up more persistently than most such queries, because I
too wonder if there might be something in it. I have a vague memory of having
read something similar in a novel once - probably someone who wrote
ecclcesiastical novels. Trollope was probably too early, Susan Howatch too
late, but Rose McCauley, Ernest Raymond...
Perhaps it really did mean no more than to give a picture of where people were
sitting in the church when something happened. But there is this
half-remembered niggle that it did mean more than that.
>In the church that my wife and I attend fairly regularly, we
>invariably sit on the right side of the center aisle. I
>don't know why we do, except that we've been doing it so
>long it would seem quite strange to sit on the other side.
>Most, if not all, of the people sitting on either side are
>the ones who are always on that side. I think now that
>that probably has just as much significance as someone
>sitting invariably on the gospel side or the epistle side in
>an Episcopal church.
>
>> The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
>> best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.
>
>I won't be making that inquiry, but if anyone else does,
>I'll read with interest any response they get.
What was the book again?
I might try to read it.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Bob Cunningham
Hayes) said:
[ . . . ]
> What was the book again?
> I might try to read it.
It's a series of highly successful books, written by Jan
Karon, a lady who had done well as an advertising executive,
but decided to retire from that, move to North Carolina, and
write some books.
You can read about her and about her books, and you can read
a chapter from the first Mitford book, at
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/writers/writer.asp?cid=881724
. The ninth book in the series is supposed to be the last.
It's due out in 2005.
Some of the posters in this thread seem to have assumed that
I was commenting on the way things were in the past. Jan
Karon's Mitford books are set in the present day.
Google gives lots of hits on Jan Karon. One that religious
people should find particularly interesting is
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cr/2001/003/10.60.html
. `
I'm not all that religious, but I greatly enjoy reading the
Mitford books for their wholesomeness and warmth, and for
their portrayal of interesting people doing interesting
things in a small town.
Bob Cunningham
(Newgroups trimmed to AUE only)
On 27 Aug 2003 09:30:43 -0700, mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
(Mike Lyle) said:
[ . . . ]
> I don't mean "reverse-acronym-formation", a good word-game evident in
> some of the cases we hear about, where the acronyms concocted could
> never have been seriously offered as derivations -- though the less
> finely-tuned do sometimes seem to take them for the real thing.
I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
own: ABSCISSA
"A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."
John Varela
wrote:
> I think that statement is too emphatic. My understanding is
> that no one has proven that it's true, and those who comment
> authoritatively on these things have cast serious doubt on
> its truth, but I don't think any authoritative source has
> stated firmly that it's absolutely without any doubt
> whatsoever false.
When arguing by appeal to authority go to the experts:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology/posh_etymology_of.html
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
> In the church that my wife and I attend fairly regularly, we
> invariably sit on the right side of the center aisle. I
> don't know why we do, except that we've been doing it so
> long it would seem quite strange to sit on the other side.
This may be akin to the often observed practice at meetings that extend for
more than one day. Wherever people happened to sit at the first session, they
invariably take the same seats at all following sessions. Then some newcomer
joins the meeting and takes the chair of one of the regulars...
--
John Varela
Frances Kemmish
That happens in classrooms too. I remember a seminar class that was held
at the Yale Art Gallery, where the Professor would sit in a different
place each time, forcing the students to sit in different places. They
were invariably very unsettled by the manoevre.
Fran
Matthew Huntbach
> I've decided that there almost certainly is no great
> significance. It seems likely that, if there were some deep
> underlying significance, in the numerous postings to this
> thread someone would have come up with a meaning beyond the
> one stated by an early responder: When I rephrased my
> question to "If I normally sit on, say, the gospel side,
> what does that tell someone about me?" she answered, in
> effect, "It shows you're a creature of habit".
Yes, I strongly think that all that is meant here is that in a church
with an established congregation most people will tend to take their
place when they attend services in the seat where they always take it.
It is of no great significance that it happens to be on the left side
or the right side (which in a church which follows the ritual of
reading the Epistle from one side and the gospel from the other might
be called by these names), but it is the case that it's unusual for
someone to sit one week on the left, the other on the right.
As a result of always sitting in the same place, you will probably
tend to become more familiar with the people who always sit in about
the same place than with the people who sit on the other side of the
church. But it doesn't mean that the crowd who sit around you have any
intrinsically different qualities from the crowd who out of habit sit
on the other side.
Matthew Huntbach
Bob Cunningham
I'm not convinced that they're experts. They say
The acronym is said to explain the right
placement of one's stateroom for being on the
shady or the lee side of the ship. On the
east-west passage it is true, the ship being
north of the sun, that the acronym will locate
the shady side (though time of year will make
a substantial difference). The lee side,
however, is determined by the monsoon winds,
and since they blow into the Asian heartland
all summer and out all winter, only the season
can determine which side will be sheltered.
If there were anything to the highly suspect popular
etymology of "POSH", I believe it would have to do only with
the direction of the Sun and the resulting shade. If you're
inside your stateroom with the door and the portholes
closed, it should matter little whether or not the wind is
blowing more on your side of the ship than on the other
side. The stateroom gets hotter if the Sun is beating on
the outside wall. Wind should have little or nothing to do
with the stateroom temperature.
I've read explanations of the dubious etymology of "POSH".
This is the first time I've seen wind mentioned. I think
it's an error to mention it as part of the reason for
preferring one side of the ship over the other.
If I had to choose a side of the ship independently of
consideration of the Sun's direction, I would pick the
windward side, expecting that it would give me the option to
open a porthole -- or maybe a door -- and get some of the
breeze inside.
Robert Coates
"Louis" <Xmycr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TdR2b.4944$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Interestingly, in mosque design, this is a very serious consideration.
Muslims consider it a grave offense to urinate or evacuate facing Mecca.
Therefore all urinals and toilets must be oriented (unavoidable pun) on a
north-south axis. Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.
I hope everyone found this interesting -- or not.
Bob
Robert Coates
already read everyone else's:
I think it relates to the specific church in the story, rather than a
general rule. And I know most of the general rules, having for several
years attended a grand old Anglo-Catholic church that observed rules even
the Pope never heard of.
I think the amusing POSH sidebar may bear a clue. The effect of the morning
sun would have the effect of making one side of the church more comfortable
than the other. If the epistle side were south or east, it would get direct
sunlight through the windows and might be very unpleasant. The better
established parishioners would of course get the better seats.
Also, it used to be common practice for churches to reserve pews in the
forward area of the church for regular contributors or those who contributed
to the permanent endowment. You can still see the nice little brass plaques
on the back of the pews in old Episcopal churches. Presbyterians did it
too. This practice was gradually abandoned after the 1960's because it was
deemed undemocratic and exclusionary, but of course, people continue to sit
in the same seats out of habit. Perhaps the wealthy old-timers had "owned"
pews in the front near the pulpit (Gospel side) where they would have a
better view of the preacher, and vice versa. The poor people nobody wanted
to look at sat on the other side.
Good luck on your research. This thread has been a real ride.
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sjl8sv8g4cfq0hsjh...@4ax.com...
Maria Conlon
> (Newgroups trimmed to AUE only)
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>> I don't mean "reverse-acronym-formation", a good word-game evident in
>> some of the cases we hear about, where the acronyms concocted could
>> never have been seriously offered as derivations -- though the less
>> finely-tuned do sometimes seem to take them for the real thing.
>
> I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
>
> To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
> own: ABSCISSA
>
> "A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."
That works out to ABTSCISSA.
NTIM.
Maria Conlon
Steve Hayes
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<3f4c15dd....@news.saix.net>...
>> But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
>> significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
>> as described in a novel.
>>
>> The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
>> best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.
>
>I hope so too, but I imagine that, as somebody's suggested, it's just
>that people have habits.
>
>Has anybody mentioned that in England the wealthy often used to rent
>their own particular pews, sometimes I believe screened from the
>vulgar gaze? I imagine that some families would choose to have their
>pews or stalls nearer to or farther from the pulpit (always on the
>Gospel side?) according to taste.
In South Africa the first Anglican churches were built by founding limited
liability companies, and selling shares. Dividends were paid out of pew rents.
Not very long ago the Anglican cathedral in Johannesburg had noitices at the
entrances saying "All seats in this church are free".
[ follow-ups set ]
Bob Cunningham
<mcon...@sprynet.com> said:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > (Newsgroups trimmed to AUE only)
> > > Mike Lyle said:
> > [ . . . ]
Yes, Tootsie, I know, but thanks for commenting; it's always
a treat to hear from you.
The contriver of farfetched acronyms has license to ignore
or include things like prepositions, articles, and
conjunctions that don't contribute to the preponderant
insignificance of the thing acronymized.
As you undoubtedly know, "abscissa" is a good English word;
"abtscissa" is not.
To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
"ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Consider "Organization OF Petroleum Exporting Countries":
OPEC, which, although it isn't a contrived or farfetched
acronym, by ignoring "of" still illustrates the license
mentioned.
Scanning a list of acronyms at
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/acronyms/U.html
, having picked at random the "U" list, I find
UQAM Universite de Quebec a Montreal
, which illustrates both the ignoring and retention of minor
words. To some French acronym contriver, the "de" was
tossable, while the "a" was keepable to presumably produce a
pronounceable acronym. I don't speak French, but I think
the "Que" in "Quebec" is pronounced something like my "c" in
"cookie", so a French speaker may pronounce "UQAM" something
like "oo-kam".
Fond regards,
Bart
Bob Cunningham
Hayes) said that Mike Lyle) wrote that
[ . . . ]
> >> But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question,
> >> which was about the significance of the laity
> >> habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
> >> as described in a novel.
It's embarrassing to confess it at this late date, but it
turns out my question reflected a breakdown of communication
between me and the person with whom I've shared a home for
the past three score years or so.
What she was curious about was not the significance of
sitting on one side or the other, but the reasons one side
was called the gospel side and the other, the epistle side.
She was fully satisfied with an answer I was able to give
her soon after the thread began. I didn't know she was so
soon satisfied, and she didn't know I was long after trying
to find an answer to the wrong question.
Many thanks to all who have contributed. Although I led you
down the wrong path, your comments have been interesting and
worthwhile to read.
Matti Lamprhey
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
> >
> > To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
> > own: ABSCISSA
> >
> > "A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."
>
> That works out to ABTSCISSA.
>
> NTIM.
Maria, I just thought you ought to know that, in the other groups I
frequent, that's "Nubile tits in Marmite".
Matti
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
> Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
> infraction to urinate standing.
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.
Mike.
Bob Cunningham
(Mike Lyle) said:
The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
newsgroups:
alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.
Christopher Green
[snip]
> Has anybody mentioned that in England the wealthy often used to rent
> their own particular pews, sometimes I believe screened from the
> vulgar gaze? I imagine that some families would choose to have their
> pews or stalls nearer to or farther from the pulpit (always on the
> Gospel side?) according to taste.
>
> There is a connection here with the perhaps not quite obsolete
> practice of having certain clerical "livings" at the disposal of
> certain people or bodies. (My old school chaplain on retirement became
> Rector of a tiny but ornamental parish by courtesy, I understood, of
> his old Oxford College.) You pay for it, you get the best seat.
>
> Mike.
Old habits tend to die slowly in congregations. A pastor friend
recalls preaching in a church in Scotland. At the start, all the
parishioners sat in one corner. Then, right in the middle of worship,
they all got up and moved to the opposite corner. Later, he asked what
the significance of this was.
It seems the church used to be heated by a stove that stood in the
first corner, so that had been the only warm place in the church. As
the service progressed, and the church warmed up, it would become
uncomfortably hot too close to the stove.
The church had long been fitted with central heating, but the
tradition remained.
--
Chris Green
Bob Cunningham
(Christopher Green) said:
[ . . . ]
> Old habits tend to die slowly in congregations. A pastor friend
> recalls preaching in a church in Scotland. At the start, all the
> parishioners sat in one corner. Then, right in the middle of worship,
> they all got up and moved to the opposite corner. Later, he asked what
> the significance of this was.
> It seems the church used to be heated by a stove that stood in the
> first corner, so that had been the only warm place in the church. As
> the service progressed, and the church warmed up, it would become
> uncomfortably hot too close to the stove.
> The church had long been fitted with central heating, but the
> tradition remained.
There are probably several similar stories. One of them
tells about the lady who always cut a slice off the end of a
roast before she put it in the oven. She said she did that
because her mother always did it. Turned out her mother had
a relatively small pan for doing roasts, so she usually had
to cut a little off the end to fit the roast into the pan.
Mike Lyle
Is that a rebuke, Bob? I left the "Send to" list untouched, as that's
the way the thing reached me, and didn't see any good reason for
removing any of the groups. I wouldn't presume to tell
alt.religion.islam what they must certainly know more about than I do.
I'm not an habitual cross-poster, and if an apology is needed, you all
have it, necessarily via this cross-posting.
Mike.
Bob Cunningham
(Mike Lyle) said:
Nah, just a playful nudge. I know that things like that
happen in all innocence. I've crossposted inadvertently
many times. I just thought it was sorta amusing that we
were crossposting to religious groups comments on the
urinary posture of the Prophet of Islam.
Ray Heindl
> To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
> "ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
> farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
> stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
> acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of the
Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
whether the acronym is apt in his case.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)
Matti Lamprhey
>
> I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of
> the Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
> Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
> whether the acronym is apt in his case.
If not, then it's presumably an anacronym.
Matti
Evan Kirshenbaum
"I think we're all beginning to lose site of the real issue here,
which is, what are we going to call ourselves? I've narrowed it
down to two suggestions. The League Against Salivating Monsters,
or, my own personal preference, the Committee for the Liberation
and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation
Into Society. Uhm, one drawback with that, the abbreviation is
CLITORIS."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
John Varela
FOLLOW-UPS
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:02:43 UTC, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
You clipped the quotation. It continues:
The earlier dating of 'posh' as glossed above sufficently refutes
the ingenious (but too late) acronymic invention. And as a clincher,
veterans of the Peninsula and Eastern, questioned about the term,
replied that they had never heard it in the acronymic sense. ---
The dating referenced is to the seventeenth century, in a quotation from the
great John Ciardi.
> If there were anything to the highly suspect popular
> etymology of "POSH", I believe it would have to do only with
> the direction of the Sun and the resulting shade. If you're
> inside your stateroom with the door and the portholes
> closed, it should matter little whether or not the wind is
> blowing more on your side of the ship than on the other
> side. The stateroom gets hotter if the Sun is beating on
> the outside wall. Wind should have little or nothing to do
> with the stateroom temperature.
But why would you close the doors and portholes in an un-air-conditioned ship
in the tropics? And you're ignoring the mention of the monsoon, when the sun
don't shine.
> I've read explanations of the dubious etymology of "POSH".
> This is the first time I've seen wind mentioned. I think
> it's an error to mention it as part of the reason for
> preferring one side of the ship over the other.
>
> If I had to choose a side of the ship independently of
> consideration of the Sun's direction, I would pick the
> windward side, expecting that it would give me the option to
> open a porthole -- or maybe a door -- and get some of the
> breeze inside.
Precisely.
--
John Varela
Bob Cunningham
After due consideration, I must give the first prize to
"ABSCISSA". It quite clearly can have no relation to
stupid, silly acronyms. On the other hand, for all we know,
"SPERMFLOW" may have been an obsession that drove every
aspect of Fillmore's existence.
DENNIS THOMPSON
"highness"..... sadly, for some of us, it has left the old "low church",,,,news:3F4C3C...@pacbell.net...
> DENNIS THOMPSON wrote:
> >
> > As the "lead" usher at the Third Sunday Family Service at my Episcopal
> > parish, I have the duty of informing the servers at the rail of persons
who
> > require communion to be served in their pews. I have alway felt that I
> > should say, e.g., "the elderly lady/gentleman on the epistle/gospel side
> > center aisle",,,, but when I get to the rail to deliver the message
> > invariably I forget which is epistle or gospel,,,, and then because the
> > server is facing me, I am not certain if he/she knows which side when I
> > refer to as the left side center aisle..... Such is the life of an
> > Episcopal usher.
>
> My *dear* good fellow! THAT is what ceremony is *for*! You say in
> sonorous whisper "the gentleman is on the (here insert very ceremonial
> *hand genture*) Gospel side..."
>
> You raise your hand, palm toward your shoulder, elbow bent, and then
> rooooollll your arm out and down, horizontal, at last... hand naturally
> unfurling, palm upward, fingers gracefully arched, then unfolding like
> the veriest tender green fern after a warm Spring rain, concluding with
> the hand delicately, oh, so delicately, trembling *ever* so slightly, in
> the direction of said gentleman! Think Swan Lake! Think Madame Olga
> Ivanawfulitch en-pointe, tutu a-quiver as she extends her arm... *OVER
> THERE YA IDJIT*! :D
>
> Very High Church!
>
> St. Fu Fu
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon said:
>> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>> I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
>
>>> To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
>>> own: ABSCISSA
>
>>> "A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."
>
>> That works out to ABTSCISSA.
>
> Yes, Tootsie, I know, but thanks for commenting; it's always
> a treat to hear from you.
Even when my comment is rather smart alecky? I was just being a pain,
you know. Some days, I'm like that. :-)
> The contriver of farfetched acronyms has license to ignore
> or include things like prepositions, articles, and
> conjunctions that don't contribute to the preponderant
> insignificance of the thing acronymized.
>
> As you undoubtedly know, "abscissa" is a good English word;
> "abtscissa" is not.
I didn't know "abscissa" is an actual word. It sounds like a version of
"abscess," which, of course, does not fit "A bore that should cease is
stupid, silly acronyms." Therefore, it would not be contrived.
> To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
> "ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
> farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
> stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
> acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
No? From M-W online: "Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, feminine of
abscissus, past participle of /abscindere/ to cut off, from /ab- +
scindere/ to cut -- more at SHED." Couldn't that be related to "cease"?
> Consider "Organization OF Petroleum Exporting Countries":
> OPEC, which, although it isn't a contrived or farfetched
> acronym, by ignoring "of" still illustrates the license
> mentioned.
OOPEC would sound foolish. If that license you mention did not exist,
someone would invent it just for cases like OOPEC.
[...]
>
> Fond regards,
> Bart
Hello, Bart. Got your black shirt on? With a white hat? Cool.
Maria ("Tootsie" -- sorry, C.) Conlon
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote...
Stay out of those groups, then. They lack refinement.
Maria Conlon
Mike Oliver
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>> Maria Conlon wrote...
>>
>> Maria, I just thought you ought to know that, in the other groups I
>> frequent, that's "Nubile tits in Marmite".
>
> Stay out of those groups, then. They lack refinement.
You'd rather use Vegemite?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Maria Conlon
Enquiring minds aren't going to find out, though. Not from me.
Maria Conlon
Steve Hayes
wrote:
It seems that this particular sub-thread was introduced by a fellow called
Louis.
Perhaps he should have changed the subject line and set follow-ups
accordingly.
Timothy Lee
<dptho...@verizon.net> writes
>As the "lead" usher at the Third Sunday Family Service at my Episcopal
>parish, I have the duty of informing the servers at the rail of persons who
>require communion to be served in their pews. I have alway felt that I
>should say, e.g., "the elderly lady/gentleman on the epistle/gospel side
>center aisle",,,, but when I get to the rail to deliver the message
>invariably I forget which is epistle or gospel,,,, and then because the
>server is facing me, I am not certain if he/she knows which side when I
>refer to as the left side center aisle..... Such is the life of an
>Episcopal usher.
Could you not use decani and cantoris, or North and South?
--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
Timothy Lee
<rhe...@nccwx.net> writes
that always makes it through to the final of the boat race?
Timothy Lee
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes
> "I think we're all beginning to lose site of the real issue here,
> which is, what are we going to call ourselves? I've narrowed it
> down to two suggestions. The League Against Salivating Monsters,
> or, my own personal preference, the Committee for the Liberation
> and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation
> Into Society. Uhm, one drawback with that, the abbreviation is
> CLITORIS."
>
Mike Lyle
> > Is that a rebuke, Bob?
>
> Nah, just a playful nudge. I know that things like that
> happen in all innocence. I've crossposted inadvertently
> many times. I just thought it was sorta amusing that we
> were crossposting to religious groups comments on the
> urinary posture of the Prophet of Islam.
We're nothing if not ecumenical.
Mike.
Dana Prescott
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:28:13 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Aug 2003 05:38:45 -0700, mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
> >(Mike Lyle) said:
> >
> >> "Robert Coates" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<l3d3b.217193$It4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> >> [...]
> >> > Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
> >> > Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a
> >> > ritual infraction to urinate standing.
> >> [...]
>
> >> I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
> >> one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
> >> be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
> >> exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
> >> wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.
I believe there's also an element about "Imitation of the Prophet" as
a spiritual practice, comparable to the philosophy espoused in St.
Thomas a Kempis' "Imitation of Christ". You become "like" a holy man
by imitating what the holy man did. So if the Prophet blew his nose a
certain way, you're also supposed to blow your nose in the same way,
simply because the Prophet did it that way. It's rather arbitrary, to
say the least.
Actually, at our university, Moslem guys pee at the open urinals just
like everybody else. Of course they're wearing western clothes, not
robes, but I
haven't ever seen a guy take out a compass to figure out whether he's
"peeing toward Mecca" either. And in India, guys of all faiths pee
openly outdoors just about any place they please, as you'll know if
you've travelled there. I must say, if my religion required me to pee
squatting rather than standing, and frowned on the installation of
urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to having a religious
conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that God gives a flying flush
if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a cultural and a practical "male
plumbing" perk, and (if you please) the enjoyment of one of our
"special anatomical gifts". It's not even remotely a theological
issue.
"Offensive subject matter"? Hey, not nearly as offensive as the
spiteful fag-bashing that's been taking place around here since GC. At
least this topic is culturally didactic!
Gary
Can Muslims write "Allah's" name in the snow with their "special anatomical gifts" (facing away from Mecca of course)?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
CyberCypher
news:66c68896.0308...@posting.google.com:
[...]
> I must say, if my religion
> required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned on
> the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to
> having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that
> God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a
> cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk, and (if you please)
> the enjoyment of one of our "special anatomical gifts". It's not
> even remotely a theological issue.
It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
how women are essentially equally endowed to pee standing up:
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.
Ross Howard
wrought:
One of the more colourful aspects of the popular culture of the
*barrio* I live in (Sacromonte, the gypsy quarter of Grranada) is that
it used to be -- and still is, at least in theory -- socially
acceptable for women to stop in the street, set their feet wide apart,
hoist their flouncy skirts up to their knees and just, er, go with the
flow. (One assumes that, like Scotsmen, they weren't big fans of
Calvin Klein.)
Sadly, only one of my *vecinas*, a very-very-ancient-indeed lady,
still keeps this fine practice alive -- probably because she's the
only one who has not given up on the raditional flouncy skirts and
opted for the now-ubiquitous fuchsia-flannel-tracksuit look.
***********
Ross Howard
Irwell
It's no use standing on the seat 'cos our crabs can jump ten feet.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
> about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
> how women are essentially equally endowed to pee standing up:
> http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
> You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.
As they say, one pissure is worth a thousand words:
http://www.curlydavid.com/images/equal4.jpg (48K)
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
who thinks female pirates peed standing up
and never blew a man down. Yo ho.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2003 11:11:29 -0700, mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
>(Mike Lyle) said:
>
>> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<h4cpkv04oq8cf611e...@4ax.com>...
>> > The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
>> > newsgroups:
>> >
>> > alt.usage.english
>> > alt.religion.christian.episcopal
>> > alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
>> >
>> > While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
>> > in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
>> > the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
>> > so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
>> > even more interested.
>>
>> Is that a rebuke, Bob?
>
>Nah, just a playful nudge. I know that things like that
>happen in all innocence. I've crossposted inadvertently
>many times. I just thought it was sorta amusing that we
>were crossposting to religious groups comments on the
>urinary posture of the Prophet of Islam.
It happens with thread drift - something cross-posted may originally be
relevant to all the groups it is posted in, and then a sub-thread (like the
"posh" one) ceases to be relevant in some of the groups. It's easily fixed.
[ follow-ups set ]
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
William S. Hubbard
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f4ecbc2...@news.saix.net...
Mike Lyle
Attagirl!
But in response to Franke, above, no, of course it isn't theological.
As I think I said, if you're wearing a long shirt or sarong-thing
rather than trousers, and in a culture which calls for modesty in the
matter of exposed flesh, it's much more sensible to squat.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> Dana Prescott wrote:
[...]
> > "Offensive subject matter"? Hey, not nearly as offensive as the
> > spiteful fag-bashing that's been taking place around here since GC. At
> > least this topic is culturally didactic!
>
> Can Muslims write "Allah's" name in the snow with their "special anatomical gifts" (facing away from Mecca of course)?
That *is* offensive.
Mike.
Padraig Breathnach
>In article <1d9nkvg4cj3bog1dj...@4ax.com>, Bob Cunningham
><exw...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>>I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
>
>Me, too.
Aw c'mon Jimbo! You're not really a blight on the language.
PB
Schultz
> <...> And in India, guys of all faiths pee
> openly outdoors just about any place they please, as you'll know if
In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop while
working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward the
windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature until a
passing train presents the opportunity.
\\P. Schultz
R J Valentine
CyberCypher
news:bio7ff$67q$1...@e250.ripco.com:
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> CyberCypher wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
>> > but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to
>> > find out how women are essentially equally endowed to pee
>> > standing up:
>>
>> > http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
>>
>> > You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.
>>
>> As they say, one pissure is worth a thousand words:
>>
>> http://www.curlydavid.com/images/equal4.jpg (48K)
>>
>
> Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?
Oy! Murray. Does she have to?
CyberCypher
news:3fa4d950.03082...@posting.google.com:
[...]
>> On 29 Aug 2003 12:38:30 GMT, CyberCypher <hui...@netscape.net>
>> wrought:
>>
>> >high...@yahoo.com (Dana Prescott) burbled
>> >news:66c68896.0308...@posting.google.com:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> I must say, if my religion
>> >> required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned
>> >> on the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious
>> >> thought to having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't
>> >> imagine that God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up.
>> >> It's clearly a cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk,
>> >> and (if you please) the enjoyment of one of our "special
>> >> anatomical gifts". It's not even remotely a theological issue.
>> >
>> >It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
>> >but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to
>> >find out how women are essentially equally endowed to pee
>> >standing up:
>> >
>> >http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
>> >
>> >You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.
>>
[...]
> But in response to Franke, above, no, of course it isn't
> theological. As I think I said, if you're wearing a long shirt or
> sarong-thing rather than trousers, and in a culture which calls
> for modesty in the matter of exposed flesh, it's much more
> sensible to squat.
Unless you're posing for a pornopic.
If you want to keep the area around the toilet seat urine-free, it
is also more sensible to sit down when you pee. (Who was that
comedienne with the line about guys being happy when they hit
anything?) And if you have a serious problem with an enlagred
prostate, sitting down may be the difference between fatigue and
having a good rest of the day. I forget why the bad guy (was it
Jean-Claude Van Damme?) in _The Long Kiss Goodnight_ said he sat
down to pee, but I do remember that Charlie Baltimore was mighty
impressed with it.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop
> while working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward
> the windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature
> until a passing train presents the opportunity.
What if they're raising sheep rather than asses?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Steve Hayes
You've made a study of it?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Schultz <yan...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop
>> while working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward
>> the windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature
>> until a passing train presents the opportunity.
>
>What if they're raising sheep rather than asses?
One thing you can be fairly sure of -- it wasn't pigs.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
Timothy Lee
writes
>
>Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?
Cue Fascinating Aida song about a Duchess:
How we laughed when she widdled her name in the snow,
But Beatrice the silly,
Carved a great big ice willy
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > CyberCypher wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
> > > but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find
> > > out how women are essentially equally endowed to pee standing up:
> > >
> > > http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
> > >
> > > You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.
> > As they say, one pissure is worth a thousand words:
> > http://www.curlydavid.com/images/equal4.jpg (48K)
> Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?
I'm sure she can if she has a simple-to-write name like "Jo." It'd be
much more difficult if her name were, say, "Sara Moffat Lorimer" or
"Anna-María de la Concepción." In such a case, the Negro standing
behind her [see photo] would gladly offer his bratwurst-fingers to
manipulate her labia minora and vaginal vestibule to do a reasonably
legible job.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Mike Lyle
> Schultz <yan...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop
> > while working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward
> > the windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature
> > until a passing train presents the opportunity.
>
> What if they're raising sheep rather than asses?
It's much easier then: you only have to point one sheep toward the
train, and the others copy it.
Mike.
Ross Howard
wrought:
A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the famous male
"shake everythang you got" routine before tucking todger back in
trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal situations, since a
quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet paper removes the residual
drips more effectively and less messily.
Vorsprung durch technik, innit.
***********
Ross Howard
Spehro Pefhany
<tim...@wightproperty.com> wrote:
>In article <bio7ff$67q$1...@e250.ripco.com>, Murray Arnow <ar...@iname.com>
>writes
>>
>>Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?
>
>Cue Fascinating Aida song about a Duchess:
>
>How we laughed when she widdled her name in the snow,
>But Beatrice the silly,
>Carved a great big ice willy
I spotted little take-out place in North York yesterday with the
irresistible name "Willy's Jerk". They offer the traditional "rice and
peas" (see, there's the other connection), which seems to always have
red kidney beans with the rice (and theirs was no exception). Strange,
but apparently that dish traditionally does use a kind of pea, at
least it does in the West Indies. Those legumes have a lot of
different names (see below). BTWJFYI, the jerk chicken was
mouth-wateringly good, and the gal on the counter was drop-dead
mouth-wateringly gorgeous.
http://www.caribbeanseeds.com/gandules.htm
---
Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.
Also known as:
Congo pea, Guandu, No-eye pea, Red gram, Arhur, Grandul, Dhal, Toor,
Grinds pea, Puerto Rico pea, Urhur, Pidgeon Pea, Feijao Guandu,
Adhaki, Chieh Tu Tzu, Chieh Tu, Gandul, Guaduli, Guandul, Pois Cajan,
Pois Congo, Pois D'Angolie, Shan Tou Ken, Kachang gude, Kachang kayu
(tree bean), Katjang bali, frijol de palo.
Leguminosae, Fabaceae
Pigeon pea, a valuable legume, is cultivated extensively in India,
Southeast Asia, parts of Africa and the West Indies. It is a typical
dish in the Puertorican culinary culture. Because of its high protein
content, it is used as a substitute for meats. The bush is very easy
to grow and very productive. It needs very little watering because of
its deep root system.
---
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Schultz
>
> On 29 Aug 2003 22:33:53 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Schultz <yan...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> > > In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop
> >> while working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward
> >> the windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature
> >> until a passing train presents the opportunity.
> >
> >What if they're raising sheep rather than asses?
>
> One thing you can be fairly sure of -- it wasn't pigs.
Not necessarily. Egypt is 10% Christian, and there is a pork market in
Cairo.
\\P. Schultz
CyberCypher
news:2f11lvs9v2a2a08bq...@4ax.com:
This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized. I've
noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his pants
just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point, though. But
his shorts do.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I spotted little take-out place in North York yesterday with the
> irresistible name "Willy's Jerk". They offer the traditional "rice and
> peas" (see, there's the other connection), which seems to always have
> red kidney beans with the rice (and theirs was no exception). Strange,
> but apparently that dish traditionally does use a kind of pea, at
> least it does in the West Indies. Those legumes have a lot of
As does the dish. Isn't it also called "moros y cristianos"?
Arabs and Persians do a good thing with rice and green lentils, with
or without meat.
Mike.
Dana Prescott
> In article <bio7ff$67q$1...@e250.ripco.com>, Murray Arnow <ar...@iname.com>
> writes
> >
> >Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?
>
> Cue Fascinating Aida song about a Duchess:
>
> How we laughed when she widdled her name in the snow,
> But Beatrice the silly,
> Carved a great big ice willy
All of this is reminding me of the joke, posted ages ago, about the
three little boys who decided that perhaps they needed to be baptized;
collectively filled up a sandbox pail from...um..."the most readily
available source of water"; sprinkled it over themselves; and then
decided they had just made themselves "piss-co-pail-ians"! As an
elementary-school veteran of the boys' gang showers at the YMCA (when
nude swimming for boys was still mandatory at the "Y"), I can tell you
that a whole lot of such impromptu "mutual baptizing" took place on a
regular basis. Oh, for those charming days, before America became so
absurdly uptight about just "letting boys be boys" -- uptight even to
the point of today demanding that Boy Scouts must make a virtual
"declaration of heterosexuality" to be accepted for membership.
American culture has devolved into a complete travesty against our
basic shared humanity. BTW, I'm also familiar with the "women can pee
standing" movement. My response is: YOU GO, GIRRRRLS! It's fine by me,
and a nice trick if you can pull it off!
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Ross Howard burbled:
[...]
> > A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the famous
> > male "shake everythang you got" routine before tucking todger back
> > in trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal situations,
> > since a quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet paper removes
> > the residual drips more effectively and less messily.
> >
> > Vorsprung durch technik, innit.
> This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized. I've
> noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his pants
> just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point, though. But
> his shorts do.
To avoid that -- unless your boy is afflicted with phimosis (which can
easily be fixed) -- tell him to pull his foreskin back beyond the
glans before peeing.
BTW, has anyone heard these rhymes or variants thereof?
Heard from a Wisconsin woman:
No matter how you prance and dance,
The last few drops run down your pants.
Heard from a man:
No matter how you shake your peg,
The last few drops run down your leg.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Louis
> Louis.
>
> Perhaps he should have changed the subject line and set follow-ups
> accordingly.
Well, one never knows how a satirical comment will be taken (esp. on the
internet).
L
>
>
>